Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
To a logical person, yes! But that was a witty retort!
The OP never mentioned the Federal Government. He said "government job." That could be state, local, or federal. And honestly, lying on a Federal Job Application is a FELONY? I cast aspersions on that claim I was supposed to just accept at face value.
Point me to the statute that supports it, or give up the ground.
US code Title 18, Section 1001
Specifically referenced on the Declaration of Federal Employment. OMB No. 3206-0182, among others. Second paragraph of the instructions.
Pbassmanca
In the pocket n' thumpy. So woody, so greasy...
I remember some of my work colleagues in the trade had to work on a job for CSIS, which is sort of the Canadian version of the CIA. Each one of them had to go through a rigorous interview which included a written synopsis of a frighteningly thorough amount of deeply personal information collected by the agency without their fore knowledge. Needless to say, they probably know more about you than you know about yourself already, probably including postings on this forum......#justtellthemstuff...
I know a woman who works for a major branch of the government and even she says to lie.
Funny thing is that I'm normally very honest sometimes to my detriment. I agree with most of you, honesty is usually the best policy. I don' like concrete pillows. But once you get past the hiring process, you can relax. And of course you're not going to post the drug qualifications as part of the job posting.
So why even apply if applicants don't know there might be a zero tolerance policy in place? It wastes time for everyone involved.
Funny thing is that I'm normally very honest sometimes to my detriment. I agree with most of you, honesty is usually the best policy. I don' like concrete pillows. But once you get past the hiring process, you can relax. And of course you're not going to post the drug qualifications as part of the job posting.
So why even apply if applicants don't know there might be a zero tolerance policy in place? It wastes time for everyone involved.
Again, have they told you that prior drug use is a disqualifier, and that they will ask that on the poly?
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
It doesn't matter what the lie is - something important or something insignificant. That in itself, if caught, is a reason almost any employer would disqualify an otherwise qualified employee.
Not true. I've seen guys walked off a job by security when their background investigation turned up something. They keep investigating you even after you're hired.
I tried to explain this in my first post, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
This is a little off topic, but there is a reason polygraphs are not admissible in court, people can deceive them, and innocent people can fail them.
I'm one of the latter, I've taken them twice, 20 years apart. In the first, the tester said I was being highly deceptive. The second time was the same, but labeled inconclusive. The irony being I answered all questions truthfully, and was found innocent in the first case, and my attorney didn't use the results of the second which never went anywhere anyway.
The only answer I got is that they don't work on some people, and that a highly intelligent person can determine which questions, no matter how mundane, can pose a risk to them eliciting the same fight or flight physiological responses.
Good luck!
I'm one of the latter, I've taken them twice, 20 years apart. In the first, the tester said I was being highly deceptive. The second time was the same, but labeled inconclusive. The irony being I answered all questions truthfully, and was found innocent in the first case, and my attorney didn't use the results of the second which never went anywhere anyway.
The only answer I got is that they don't work on some people, and that a highly intelligent person can determine which questions, no matter how mundane, can pose a risk to them eliciting the same fight or flight physiological responses.
Good luck!
Last edited:
Pbassmanca
In the pocket n' thumpy. So woody, so greasy...
I remember some of my work colleagues in the trade had to work on a job for CSIS, which is sort of the Canadian version of the CIA. Each one of them had to go through a rigorous interview which included a written synopsis of a frighteningly thorough amount of deeply personal information collected by the agency without their fore knowledge. Needless to say, they probably know more about you than you know about yourself already, probably including postings on this forum......#justtellthemstuff...
Speaking of CSIS, here'd be a picure of the head man himself.......................................
For each sparks on the polygraph result, just say it is a fake news. After all, if a president can do it, you certainly can.
This is my experience as well.
I can tell you that in my case they actually talked to grade school teachers of mine ( among others, of course ). My past was complicated because of my family. They needed to make sure that the family history was not something I was following. When they were completely assuaged the hire was made.
It's my experience that they will be quite forthright with what they will investigate and what they will ask. The process is very expensive and time consuming. If they can deter marginal or unqualified applicants before hand, they will. Simply ask.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Almost anywhere in the US, unless you have a contract (union CBA or otherwise), you are an employee at will, and can be terminated for any non-discriminatory reason. Certainly if they find out that you lied on your application and/or interview, it is a valid reason.
This is the essence here. The key word is "reliability" when it comes to security screening - in that you the Feds can rely on you to not divulge protected or classified information (depending on you clearance level) and would be largely immune to compromise by an adversary.
What I'm saying here is that it's likely NOT about your drug use history , it IS about your ability to demonstrate your reliability. Drug use alone might not necessarily invalidate your reliability. Lying about drug use, polygraph or not, on the other hand, will almost definitely invalidate your demonstration of reliability, especially if that information is on record elsewhere.
Your best play here is to be honest if asked about this or anything else. Depending on what level of clearance you are going for, you could have some VERY personal questions posed. You can be most certain that whatever is asked in the polygraph will be validated against other sources (further interviews, interviews with family, friends, associates; any records on file anywhere (criminal, education, healthcare, banking, etc), your social media profile (incl. TB) and so on).
This is not theoretical. I just went through this when I upgraded my security clearance this year.
Depending on the agency, they may do a background check on you, rendering the polygraph moot. When I got my secret clearance in the Marines, they talked to my neighbors.
They routed me out for not being a team player.
Now what am I supposed to do with all these jerseys I bought?
Now what am I supposed to do with all these jerseys I bought?
